(16 December 1980)
So you have the granting of the apocalyptic vision of reality to someone persecuted for (if I may be so bold) doing the Lord’s work. But this vision was granted to me—not regarding Scripture—but regarding world; therefore I saw the Iron Prison, and I saw the secret Christians attacking it. Then later I saw Valis who is God or Christ here camouflaged, having invaded this world; this cannot normally be seen; only through the eyes of the Spirit of God can it be seen: God must cause it to occur. The vision informed me that I was not alone and that victory would eventually occur; God has taken control of history (actually when I had the vision in 3-74 this had not yet occurred; it took place in August of that year).[107] So there was a promise and it was soon fulfilled. The apocalyptic vision collapsed time into itself so that two thousand years of history lay before me as and in the present, an extraordinary sight; present reality included all its past forms, as in UBIK where there is reversion along the form axes. The present contained the past, and this past was disclosed, and, by virtue of this, the supra-temporal constants: the Black Iron Prison and the secret revolutionary Christians conspiring against it. Also, in addition to this vision, God intervened to act vis-à-vis the Xerox missive. The combination of the two is Christian miracle and Divine Providence; hence the Hebrew letters decoding the Xerox missive: this pointed to the God of Abraham, specifically. And then the theophany in 11-17-80 disclosed his agape nature, so there can be no doubt that it is the Christian God whom Christ called “Abba.”
The apocalyptic vision is a vision of God in-break ing to take control of history and defeat his enemies, the powers of evil; and it is in this struggle (as I was shown) that I am and was involved. The vision is both a reward and a promise, on the part of God.
(1 January 1981)
So the truly ultimate solution is to prefer music while you are here, & prefer light while you are there. This accommodation surpasses Jesus, Mani, Dante, etc. It is a truth that can only be acquired after paradiso in Dante’s terms is reached. It is as if while “fallen” here, one must die (or “die”), return home to the pleroma (heaven), view this fallen world from that vantage point, & then arrive at this realization—whereupon the Faustian striving is at last quenched; then & only then does true wisdom & peace come. Amazing. Otherwise, while here, one always seeks to go there. & while there vice versa—never content.
& my discovery of this may have been purely accidental, for, as I say, this surpasses God, who is after all “The King of Light” & predicated on the viewpoint of this world & its species. & hence only part of the story.
I am saying, there is something beyond nirvana. & it is right here (but equally there, too, as well).
It is all conveyed by the enigmatic statement, “she turned into an ape”—referring to my tutelary spirit, the AI voice, the view of the under realm. The ultimate enantiodromia has set in; & the final veil has been penetrated, & almost accidentally, as if this surpasses even God & God’s plan. The lovely Diana turned out to be an ape, but only from this viewpoint—it is all one vast hourglass turned over & over again forever, sad & absurd—but one can learn peace from this & cease to strive. &, in this cessation & striving for the spiritual, comes sanity & freedom, & true release at last, from the “weary wheel”; this, then, is the true liberation, when the spiritual psychopomp is revealed as an ape—but an ape inexpressibly beautiful who brings back to me my dead cat, & to whom I have my wife sing.
& here it all ends. It wasn’t the AI voice that said that; another voice said it about her, i.e., about the AI voice.
This is the first time in my life—i.e., within the last hour—that I have ever truly been enlightened—beyond even the Buddha or Christ or Mani, beyond all the wisdom of East & West—beyond, even another realm (heaven), Christ & God.
i.e., sanity at last.
(1981)
Tug. Valence, The way. INFLUENCE on the Reality field: “Perturbation”; this is a modern expression for the way.
I have unified Kantian Cartesianism & Taoism: the sentient tug on reality (“the reality field”) by that which is not:
The way is yielding, yet leads. It is gentle but cannot be resisted.
Valis (my one—sale—glimpse of the action of the absolute on the reality field—“a perturbation of the reality field”—) was a tug. a valence away from plumb. This is the ch’ang tao which is outside reality acting on the reality. I saw the absolute as a tug (perturbation) acting on reality (& I comprehended the Dialectic) & this is taoism. The tao is impersonal but “heaven is on the side of the good man” & “heaven fills up the empty.”
(1981)
I have been searching all my life for the benchmarks of God (indubitably pointing to Him). I have found them: Kate, Anne & Loudon.[108] The Sufi proof: beauty.
The light from above illuminating the (world into the) nativity scene. I saw it. All creatures great & small / dance upon their feet.
I have seen the infinities of Judaism, which is Morality, of xtianity which is Love, & the Greeks, which is Wisdom, & I have seen God’s power as pronoia [foreknowledge] & charis [charity] to rescue me by blessing the world itself; but beauty is a perplexing infinity, raising more questions than it answers. It is a puzzle too intricate for me. It spans all else. As I sit across the game board from Krishna I say, “I have found in beauty that which I could not myself have made; thus I have found the benchmarks. I believe, for I have the evidence that I trust; it is sufficient.” There is an infinity of good, of love, of wisdom, of power. But each particular beautiful thing is infinitely beautiful, & there is an infinity of them, so beauty, a lyre, is an infinity of infinities: ∞2
I just figured out one sentence that sums up my whole 10-volume meta novel,[109] &, what is more, leads to 2-3-74 et al:
“I believe that the universe is epiphenomenal.” (& because this has been my premise for 30 years, I was led to look beyond reality-i.e., the universe—but with no preconceptions.) I believe that my premise proves true—by reason of 2-3-74. But what I saw that is real—I really don’t know what it is, but—
It regulates the universe. That is its relationship to the universe. Regulator. & whatever that tells us. (e.g. it tells us there is purpose & design & very likely consciousness.) & any control system must be able to “move” faster than what it controls.
(1981)
The term—the concept—Ditheon[110] is the complete, absolute, total, accurate, definite, final, ultimate explanation of 2-3-74. This one word conveys it all, and the concept may be unknown in religious and theological history. [ ... ]
No, it is not a unitary psyche; it is twain. It is “di.” And because it is “di” it jointly perceives two signals (this explains the “second signal”). Two psyches, two signals—and the parallaxis that permits the set-ground discrimination. Just as bicameral means two, Ditheo: means two. And the “on” refers to Ho On.[111]
Why did I never think of it before? Two psyches, two signals. Set and ground which the twin psyches blend together; one sees set, the other sees ground. So it is essential that they do remain “di” or tain (“asunder”); if they merged into one psyche they would no longer perceive/receive two differing signals, no longer be able to do a set-ground feature extraction. This is a totally new kind of mind: two worlds (spatio-temporal?) based on a common essence; and the common essence can be perceived as archetypal constants (common to both signals of worlds; what I call “archetypes” or “eide” are those elements common to both signals, perceived by both psyches: what overlaps, is present in both (worlds) and to both psyches. Thus a wholly different kind of world is perceived by this double but mutually differing reception. It requires two parallel psyches working in unison to perform the meta-abstraction.
And this is how the “anamnesis” works: it must be the memory of the other psyche coming on, and it is perceptual memory; this is how you get a slot present, rather than the usual point present: the “lag” between the two psyches. Temporal lag. There are three fields: left, right,
and then the combined. What exists in the combined field is the supratemporal constants. There is also the depth perception which is not spatial depth but temporal depth. (I think.) The time-lag factor is turned into a perception of spatial depth or spatial-like depth; it is visible depth (hence set to ground). So it is not seen as flux but as visual parallaxis.
Only what shows up in both fields is regarded as real. So although the two psyches work in unison they remain-must remain “di.” If they were to become one, the whole point would be lost, just as if our two eyes saw exactly the same thing, depth perception would be lost. They must remain “di” but also utilize a unified field out of the two differing fields. The brain does this with what the two eyes report regarding space. This is clearly an evolutionary advance, like the ability to distinguish colors. The “common essence” (of “the two coaxial worlds”) is of course what both psyches report as perceiving; my coaxial worlds and common essence have to do with perception—binary perception—as well as binary realities (if indeed the latter is meaningful at all; I have transferred the binary or dual aspect to perception, to, virtually, an anatomical dualism, now). I suppose there is something “out there” conforming to the two fields, and to the “common essence” which is what the two fields both share, both report.
(11 June 1981)
There are two sources to our world—exactly as seen in VALIS (“Two Source Cosmogony”).[112] I didn’t see a second, added signal in 3-74; I saw the two signals (components) pull apart (I have this here & there throughout my exegesis. But only now do I know it to be so). They can be discriminated (untangled) & this is what Ditheon can do with its AB hyper-field; it can extract the Forms back out, as if Freeing them: Loosing them from their earthly shells/prisons. This is Platonist & Neo-Platonist. The correct terms are: Lower Realm & Upper Realm, & then mix to create our world. This renders the Forms sensible (empirically perceptible) but this is an inferior way of knowing them; to know them intelligibly (by the meta-abstraction) is to know them purely as they are. Thus the spiritual realm is here, commingled with the Lower Realm: our universe is not the Lower Realm but the mixture of the two.
(1981)
The discovery of an organizational hyper-structure whose hierarchical contour defies our normal abstracting ability (and yet can be detected by a colossal meta-abstraction reported by Plato and surnamed by him Noesis) is a matter of unparalleled importance, for this hyper-structure seems able progressively more and more to subsume its environment, suggesting purpose and sentience. It is not a thing among things nor even an organism among organisms, but, rather, implies by both its existence and unavailability to our normal cognition and perception the very real possibility of (1) orders of reality at a level of structural and organizational complexity unknown to us; and (2) life or at least purpose, growth and intelligence at these levels. Regarded this way, such levels and such structures cannot be defined by philosophical or theological terms but have to do with entities and their behavior that no human language system encompasses. That the spatiotemporal universe of multiplicity (physical things in time and space governed by causation) is in fact subsumed by at least one higher level of volitionally-imposed organization—and that such a structure is aware of us whereas we are not only not aware of it but normally unable to be aware of it—if this can be made the subject of indubitable observations it would lie beyond any discovery in the prior history of man.
Paradoxically, early Greek thinkers (scientist-philosophers, since these two areas had not as yet split apart) dimly perceived such levels but in no way possessed a vocabulary to depict what they saw. In point of fact the universe may not at all resemble what our normal senses—and cognition—profess; thus we may stand at the threshold of discoveries of unique magnitude, the fathoming of which may require a literal evolution of our species—and this may indeed be taking place. Thus even to know this hyper-structure is to cease to be human, and yet such knowledge—not faith, not revelation, but the utilization of pure intellect—is possible. I argue, then, that man as a species may be corning to an end, Subsumed by a higher level of organizational complexity; and a new species may be evolving out of him. I argue, finally, that the hyper-structure is to some degree actively involved in promoting this, since it is an evolutionary process in which it is involved. As pure form without substantiality—able to organize within its own structure—it is a meta-entity in the truest sense, and poses a vast, urgent mystery deserved [sic] of our profoundest attention.
(11 September 1981)
The following line of reasoning is correct. In 2-74 I experienced anamnesis. In 3-74 noesis set in. I saw not only the Forms but Pythagoras’ kosmos (which is the same thing). Further, I am correct that by noesis you can comprehend the Logos (and universe as pre-existent ideas in the mind of God: Erigena’s second hypostatis of God, “that which is created and creates”). So Pythagoras to Plato to Philo to St. John; the Logos that I saw is the Cosmic Christ. So my final conclusions in my exegesis are correct and my 9-11-81 summation is correct. This is man’s original noein restored. This was a line of thinking requiring much and difficult research. Only when I discovered that Philo’s Logos is the kosmos noetos—the place of the Forms-did I realize what no one realizes today: the Logos—structure of reality and agent of creation-is available via the hyper-abstraction called by Plato noesis, and due to anamnesis. This knowledge did not come readily or easily!
The “not 2 mothers once but 1 mother twice” is the correct analysis of my meta-abstraction and it is Plato’s noesis. It has to do with cognitive recognition—hence anamnesis.
In VALIS it goes anamnesis—Logos—Christ (which is correct) but the true progression is: anamnesis, noesis, the eide, Pythagoras’ kosmos, kosmos noetos, Philo’s logos, St. John’s Logos, Christ. So I started right (anamnesis) and wound up right (Cosmic Christ) but left a few steps out—which is okay.
What it all boils down to as being is the rational structure of creation seen by means of a meta-abstraction and itself seen as an abstraction. But we really don’t have words to depict this rational structure of creation—although “Forms” and “kosmos” and “Logos” and “Torah” and “pre-existent ideas” are used. It is (as Robert Galbreath[113] says) other. It is an intelligible apperception known through noesis alone. And it is unitazy and not substantial but structural. Nor does it involve space, time and causation, but, to be sentient and volitional and to be-or to process—information. Further, it is mind or has mind. But it is vitally important to an indubitably Christian experience; this does suggest that Jesus Christ is St. Sophia, the agent of creation and hence the Logos, its rational structural basis. The structure of the universe and the agent of creation are the same thing, because it gives rise to the physical spatiotemporal phenomenal universe we see.
(12 September 1981)
It seems a small thing to say, but I say;
The agent of creation (Logos or Forms, whatever called) is at the same time the abstract structure of creation. Although normally unavailable to our cognition and perception, this structure—and hence the agent of creation—can be known by the colossal meta-abstraction that Plato surnamed Noesis, whch is a purely intellectual act not based on revelation or faith but, rather, on what Plato called anamnesis, which is a form of recognition: hence itself an abstraction, a “seeing” in the sense that a person “sees” that if one cow plus one cow equals two cows, one plus one equals two under all circumstances.
Since Philo’s Logos is kosmos noetos, the intelligible world of the Forms, and since the Forms are available by Noesis, it follows that the Logos is available by Noesis. All that remains, then, is to equate Logos with Jesus Christ; from this it follows that the Cosmic Christ, now discorporate and involved in creation as its Logos (structure) and Pantocrator (agent of creation), is available to us through Plato’s Noesis. Christ can be known to us as now, as ubiquitous, as Lord of Creation through a purely intellectual act on our part, a meta-abstracting. However, the power to set this meta-abstracting off see
ms to reside in Christ Himself; he is both subject of it and cause of it. Which is to say: in the final analysis we can know Christ only by and through Christ Himself; he initiates the process of meta-abstracting; hence it is proper to say that we know him through grace. We cannot, by an effort of our intellect or will, set off this meta-abstraction; Christ holds the keys to the Kingdom, and always will.
If one can comprehend that the agent of creation (the Logos) is the abstract structure of creation, then one can understand why it is believed by Philo that indeed an intermediary existed between God and creation in His act of bringing creation about. This Logos (in terms of Greek philosophy) is kosmos noetos, the intelligible world of the Forms; in terms of Hebrew thought it is Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom, identified by Christian thinkers with Christ (the Wisdom-World entity of the Fourth Gospel). Thus Philo homologizes Greek and Hebrew thought, linking Plato’s Forms and Hagia Sophia, as well as the Word of God (dabhar).[Dabhar is the Hebrew root form for “speech”.]
To repeat: the abstract structural (nonsubstantial) basis of reality is also the agent of creation of reality, for from it stems that which we term “reality”: plural physical objects in space and time, controlled by causal laws. It is this agent of creation that Philo surnamed Logos and which we identify with both Christ and Hagia Sophia (the wisdom of God). This is what’I saw, as total insubstantial abstract structure.
In Pursuit of Valis Page 13
